women remembrances from their Sovereign. We can fancy him with an oratory and a lap-dog. He is the effeminate representative of an age passed by. Therefore there is no real party against LOUIS NAPOLEON, except the Red Republicans; and France is sick enough of them. The leader of an army must proclaim a dictatorship, and finally a monarchy, if he appear on the scene. This may take place some day; but we think it not probable for the present, just because Changanier had no such idea. The Sphinx was without a riddle. In the meanwhile, we counsel a little more liberty to the Press; and that, if the President is much more plagued by the intrigues of selfish ambition, he should resign and be re-elected by a majority of the nation, which would place the matter beyond a doubt. It is certain that his identity, whether it be of good stuff or mere plaster of Paris, fills up for the nonce the political gap of the nation admirably well. We really applaud him for his good taste and cleverness.

OUR NATIONAL AND OUR PRIVATE DEFENCES.

DOUBLE ADVICE OF THE "TIMES."

THAT the Times should one day say what the next it denies is nothing new. Indeed, the reverse would be a luxury to the curious. Every one remembers the parallel passages, or rather the contradictory passages placed in a parallel position by some of the Times' contemporaries, in the case of Austria and Hungary. Everbody who reads and thinks knows fifty instances of the Times denying itself. In fact, its opinions are varied as geological strata, although not so

common sense.

interesting. But it was reserved for yesterday to behold a contrast of opinion in two leaders, written, we suppose-but even that is not certain-by two different wiseacres, on the same sheet, the effect of which is ludicrously palpable to the mind accustomed in any degree to reverence fact, truth, or In the first article of the Times of Tuesday, is a review of a review. The "Quarterly," it appears, has indulged in a conventional article, abusing Sir Francis Head's work on the "Defences of Great Britain"-a work with regard to which we have already recorded our opinion. In the semblance of hurry-resembling, we should think, that of Cardinal Franzoni refusing absolution to a dying man in a letter written "in the greatest haste," unless the latter should declare his approval of the Pope's tyranny, but of which letter two rough copies were, however, found in the Cardinal's desk-in such a candid, bonâ fide hurry as this, does the "Quarterly" mis-quote Sir Francis Head, who most justly complains of such treatment. Of the iniquity of this, at present, not uncommon mode of reviewing, we shall speak hereafter; let us now consider the wicked and stupid remarks of the Times and the felicitous nature of their position on this occasion.

Sir F. Head having complained, most justly, of the gross dishonesty of a reviewer who exaggerates and creates facts to abuse his supposed text more readily, the big bully steps in, not to the rescue of either; but to strike, scratch, and kick out at both parties. The conduct of the "Quarterly," as far as honest reviewing goes, is considered by the Times as merely facetious and good fun. That we can understand; because the morale of the leading journal is in such a case sympathetic. "It is all in a hurry and serves him right. The reviewer quotes memoriter." Fancy the ". Quarterly"

in a hurry. How good! The great heavy rear-guard and baggage-waggons of the army of literature scampering a-head like a parcel of Cossacks! Capital! But the Quarterly," ," it then states, only floors Sir F. Head to exhibit its own notion of defences, which is worse in detail and more dangerous, because more insinuating than the latter, who says, in a blunt, honest way, that such and such is the case, in round numbers which the "Quarterly" falsifies. We thought that the great honest Times was about to quote Dionysius of Halicarnassus, or Cicero at least, and to pronounce a pompous classical censure on the "Quarterly" for the methodical wickedness of its haste. Not so! It passes on merely to the abuse of all defences; and says, with stupid facetiousness, that we should go to war with France to perfect our defences!

"We propose," it says, "a little war practice-' an instruction camp' in la Vendée, or an armed excursion to the fortifications of Paris. We must try everything, before we can tell whether our defences are good." All this is mere balderdash and drivelling inanity. It is neither argument, nor instinct. It is a mere apparently traitorous effusion, such as would hardly gratify the worst enemy of England; since it can convince no one but the common-place nonentity, who is satisfied with the mere bearing of a "leader" in the Times.

Now, let us turn to another article, divided from the first by a couple of dreary Colonial columns. Here, the Times, not a whit less pompous or more truthful in the abstract, treats of burglars. Two paragraphs inform us of the frequency of the crime, and that it, he, or they-viz., the Times-was horrified at Mr. Hollest's death. We like to know the precise thing that does horrify the backers of

Haynau. "This much, at least, is clear," says the Times, "there is a very formidable gang of burglars." Paragraph three descants upon the reasons why these burglars exist. In the first place, it discovers "that the improvement of the police arrangements in large towns has a tendency to drive the urban thieves into country practice." That is very exquisite, the word urban; but the Times had a classical education. How that man must astonish his laundress with these fine words! However, we will not follow the Times any further, either in the grandeur of its discoveries or the sublimity of its speculations upon thieves;-we beg pardon, we mean human beings addicted to latrocinal acts which qualify them for condign punishment at the hands of their fellow-creatures-either "urban," suburban, or completely Arcadian. Let us come at once to the fun of the Times' contrast. Mark, we have just been told that England needs no defence; that it will be time enough when we are attacked to have recourse to arms, &c., &c. Now, let us see what the Times recommends as an antidote to burglars. "Upon the other classes (viz., the rich) we would impress the necessity of effective self-protection." What! before the burglars come, O Genius of profligate scribbling? We can fancy the Times beginning an essay shortly thus:"It was a favourite remark of Peter the Great, when seated with the Empress Catherine, as was his wont, in the summerhouse of his palace on the borders of Lake Ladoga, after indulging in the laborious occupation of a carpenter and joiner by way of morning amusement, that nations are governed by the same rules as individuals."

However, let us continue. The actual Times goes on as follows:-"The chances are, that in the vast majority of the gentlemen's seats and farm-houses of the kingdom, if the

master would but devote a morning to inspecting the condition of his door-bolts and shutters, and to arranging the sleeping apartments so that they could be instantly aroused in case of alarm," &c. The wind-up is rich. It takes into consideration the increase of the rural Police. "Although we admit," says the Times, "strategetically speaking, the seeming impossibility of defending so many isolated points, it is yet undeniable that, if even a small force were maintained, the game would not be given up to the burglar so completely as at present."

Let us deal with the Times on this point as it does with Sir F. Head. What on earth is the use of defences, unless we can prove them? Therefore, let us first invite the burglars, or, if they have a secure retreat, let us go and find them and try our blunderbusses. This argument is quite fair, if the Times' argument be worth the purchase of Louis NAPOLEON'S empire in 1855, the consistency of the Times for a fortnight, the shadow of a hair of Haynau's last year's moustache, or any other probable treasure or actual blessing. However, there are the columns of the Times, January 21st, 1851, patent to the intelligent Englishman and admiring foreigner. Let the world study and honour its brilliant and consistent reasoning.

WHAT HOPE REMAINS FOR ENGLAND?

THE speech of Mr. Howe, at Southampton, on the importance of directing a rational emigration to our North American colonies, and on the value of those colonies to Great Britain, is pregnant with great truths and important matter. It places before the public, in a clear and distinct point of